Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems

In the last few years, information system technologies have focused on solving challenges in order to develop distributed applications. Distributed systems can be viewed as collections of service-provider and ser vice-consumer components interlinked by dynamically defined workflows (Luck and McBurney 2008).Alberola Oltra, JM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Such Aparicio, JM. (2014). Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems. Information Systems Frontiers. 16:163-167. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9493-6S16316716Alberola, J. M., Búrdalo, L., Julián, V., Terrasa, A., & García-Fornes, A. (2014). An adaptive framework for monitoring agent organizations. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9478-x .Alfonso, B., Botti, V., Garrido, A., & Giret, A. (2014). A MAS-based infrastructure for negotiation and its application to a water-right market. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9443-8 .Andrighetto, G., Castelfranchi, C., Mayor, E., McBreen, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Parsons, S. (2013). (Social) norm dynamics. In G. Andrighetto, G. Governatori, P. Noriega, & L. W. van der Torre (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems (pp. 135–170). Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2013). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 73–103.Boissier, O., Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., Ricci, A., & Santi, A. (2013). Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 747–761.Campos, J., Esteva, M., López-Sánchez, M., Morales, J., & Salamó, M. (2011). Organisational adaptation of multi-agent systems in a peer-to-peer scenario. Computing, 91(2), 169–215.Carrera, A., Iglesias, C. A., & Garijo, M. (2014). Beast methodology: an agile testing methodology for multi-agent systems based on behaviour driven development. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9438-5 .Criado, N., Such, J. M., & Botti, V. (2014). Norm reasoning services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9444-7 .Del Val, E., Rebollo, M., & Botti, V. (2014). Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(1), 1–30.Denti, E., Omicini, A., & Ricci, A. (2002). Coordination tools for MAS development and deployment. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16(9–10), 721–752.Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2012). A logic of agent organizations. Logic Journal of IGPL, 20(1), 283–316.Ferber, J., & Gutknecht, O. (1998). A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In Multi agent systems. Proceedings. International Conference on (pp. 128–135). IEEE.Fogués, R. L., Such, J. M., Espinosa, A., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2014). BFF: a tool for eliciting tie strength and user communities in social networking services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9453-6 .Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Evaluating software engineering techniques for developing complex systems with multiagent approaches. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 494–506.Garcia-Fornes, A., Hübner, J., Omicini, A., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Botti, V. (2011). Infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems for the new generation of distributed systems. Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence, 24(7), 1095–1097.Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Wooldridge, M. (2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 199–215.Jung, Y., Kim, M., Masoumzadeh, A., & Joshi, J. B. (2012). A survey of security issue in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 37(3), 239–260.Kota, R., Gibbins, N., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Decentralized approaches for self-adaptation in agent organizations. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 7(1), 1.Kraus, S. (1997). Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 79–97.Lin, Y. I., Chou, Y. W., Shiau, J. Y., & Chu, C. H. (2013). Multi-agent negotiation based on price schedules algorithm for distributed collaborative design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(3), 545–557.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: agent and agreement technologies.Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., & Willmott, S. (2005). Agent technology: Computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing). AgentLink.Ossowski, S., & Menezes, R. (2006). On coordination and its significance to distributed and multiagent systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 18(4), 359–370.Ossowski, S., Sierra, C., & Botti. (2013). Agreement technologies: A computing perspective. In Agreement Technologies (pp. 3–16). Springer Netherlands.Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.Ricci, A., Piunti, M., & Viroli, M. (2011). Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 23(2), 158–192.Sierra, C., & Debenham, J. (2006). Trust and honour in information-based agency. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, (p. 1225–1232). New York: ACM.Sierra, C., Botti, V., & Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI-Knstliche Intelligenz, 25(1), 57–61.Vasconcelos, W., García-Camino, A., Gaertner, D., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Noriega, P. (2012). Distributed norm management for multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5990–5999.Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. New York: Wiley.Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2), 115–152

Privacy, security, and trust issues in smart environments

Recent advances in networking, handheld computing and sensor technologies have driven forward research towards the realisation of Mark Weiser's dream of calm and ubiquitous computing (variously called pervasive computing, ambient computing, active spaces, the disappearing computer or context-aware computing). In turn, this has led to the emergence of smart environments as one significant facet of research in this domain. A smart environment, or space, is a region of the real world that is extensively equipped with sensors, actuators and computing components [1]. In effect the smart space becomes a part of a larger information system: with all actions within the space potentially affecting the underlying computer applications, which may themselves affect the space through the actuators. Such smart environments have tremendous potential within many application areas to improve the utility of a space. Consider the potential offered by a smart environment that prolongs the time an elderly or infirm person can live an independent life or the potential offered by a smart environment that supports vicarious learning

On the emergent Semantic Web and overlooked issues

The emergent Semantic Web, despite being in its infancy, has already received a lotof attention from academia and industry. This resulted in an abundance of prototype systems and discussion most of which are centred around the underlying infrastructure. However, when we critically review the work done to date we realise that there is little discussion with respect to the vision of the Semantic Web. In particular, there is an observed dearth of discussion on how to deliver knowledge sharing in an environment such as the Semantic Web in effective and efficient manners. There are a lot of overlooked issues, associated with agents and trust to hidden assumptions made with respect to knowledge representation and robust reasoning in a distributed environment. These issues could potentially hinder further development if not considered at the early stages of designing Semantic Web systems. In this perspectives paper, we aim to help engineers and practitioners of the Semantic Web by raising awareness of these issues

Data Confidentiality in Mobile Ad hoc Networks

Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) are self-configuring infrastructure-less networks comprised of mobile nodes that communicate over wireless links without any central control on a peer-to-peer basis. These individual nodes act as routers to forward both their own data and also their neighbours' data by sending and receiving packets to and from other nodes in the network. The relatively easy configuration and the quick deployment make ad hoc networks suitable the emergency situations (such as human or natural disasters) and for military units in enemy territory. Securing data dissemination between these nodes in such networks, however, is a very challenging task. Exposing such information to anyone else other than the intended nodes could cause a privacy and confidentiality breach, particularly in military scenarios. In this paper we present a novel framework to enhance the privacy and data confidentiality in mobile ad hoc networks by attaching the originator policies to the messages as they are sent between nodes. We evaluate our framework using the Network Simulator (NS-2) to check whether the privacy and confidentiality of the originator are met. For this we implemented the Policy Enforcement Points (PEPs), as NS-2 agents that manage and enforce the policies attached to packets at every node in the MANET.Comment: 12 page